Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the combination of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and AMD Radeon 760M produces a fundamentally GPU-limited experience across all tested settings. The data shows a best-case average of just 34 FPS at 1080p Low, which quickly deteriorates as resolution and visual fidelity increase, placing this combo in the 2989th position out of 2996 tested combinations. This is not a configuration for smooth, high-fidelity flight; it is a system that requires significant compromises to achieve even basic playability.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent across all settings, clearly identifying the AMD Radeon 760M as the primary bottleneck. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 34 FPS at 1920x1080 to 28 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of roughly 18%, and then plunges to 20 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 41% decrease in average FPS when moving from 1080p to 4K, a scaling pattern typical of a GPU that is saturated even at lower resolutions.

The trend is even more pronounced at higher quality presets. With Medium settings, the average FPS drops from 27 at 1080p to 22 at 1440p, and finally to 16 at 4K. At High settings, the averages are 20, 16, and 12 FPS for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, respectively. The Ultra preset yields the worst results, starting at 19 FPS at 1080p and collapsing to 15 FPS at 1440p and just 11 FPS at 4K. The uniformity of this decline—roughly 4-5 FPS lost with each step up in resolution—indicates that the GPU's shading units, texture units, and render output units are completely overwhelmed, regardless of the workload.

This scaling behavior reveals that the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is not the limiting factor in this game. The CPU's benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 28221 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4005, are far above what is necessary to feed a GPU that performs at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller performance delta between 1080p and 1440p, as the GPU would have more headroom at lower resolutions. Instead, the FPS drops almost linearly with pixel count, a classic sign of a pure pixel-throughput limit. For users, this means that lowering resolution is the single most effective way to gain performance, but even at 1080p, the frame rates remain low, underscoring the immense graphical demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achievable with this hardware in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded in the measured data is 34 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H or the AMD Radeon 760M the primary performance limiter?

A: The data indicates that the AMD Radeon 760M is the primary limiter. The consistent FPS drop across all resolutions—from 34 FPS at 1080p Low to 20 FPS at 4K Low—points to a GPU-bound scenario, as the CPU's strong benchmark scores (e.g., 28221 in Cinebench R23 multicore) are not reflected in high frame rates.

Q: How does this combo's overall performance rank compared to other tested systems?

A: This specific combination of CPU and GPU ranks 2989th out of 2996 tested combos for this game, placing it in the bottom percentile of all systems tested.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset yields an average of 34 FPS, while the Ultra preset yields an average of 19 FPS. This represents a 15 FPS (or 44%) performance penalty for enabling the highest visual quality settings.

Q: Is 4K resolution playable with this hardware?

A: No. The data shows that at 3840x2160, the average frame rates range from 20 FPS on Low settings down to 11 FPS on Ultra settings, all of which are well below the threshold for smooth, playable performance.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 760M's memory configuration affect its performance?

A: The Radeon 760M uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is "System Dependent." While the CPU supports dual-channel LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, the GPU's performance is still heavily constrained, as evidenced by its low average FPS and its 35th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, there is no "ideal" preset that delivers both high visual quality and smooth performance. The primary goal for any user of this hardware should be to achieve a playable frame rate, which the data suggests is only marginally possible at the lowest settings. The Low preset at 1920x1080 is the only configuration that breaks the 30 FPS barrier, with an average of 34 FPS. This should be considered the baseline for any serious play session.

The Medium preset at 1080p, with an average of 27 FPS and a minimum of 23 FPS, presents a more visually appealing option but comes with a significant performance cost. While 27 FPS may be tolerable in less demanding flight phases, the minimum frame rate of 23 FPS indicates that stutters will occur during complex scenery loading or over dense urban areas. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p are not recommended, as their average FPS of 20 and 19, respectively, fall into a range that is generally considered unplayable for a simulation that requires precise control.

At higher resolutions, the situation becomes untenable. The 1440p Medium preset averages 22 FPS, and the 4K Low preset averages 20 FPS; both are poor experiences. The data strongly suggests that users should prioritize resolution scaling over visual fidelity. Starting with 1080p Low and selectively increasing individual settings—if the game's options allow—would be the only path to a more balanced experience. However, the benchmark results indicate that the GPU has very little headroom, so any increase in visual quality will result in a disproportionally large hit to the average frame rate. For users who cannot tolerate low visual settings, this hardware combination will not provide a satisfactory experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

How This Combo Ranks

The performance ranking for this combination is decisively poor. With a rank of 2989 out of 2996 tested combinations, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and AMD Radeon 760M sit at the very bottom of the performance spectrum for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's low computational power, as the Radeon 760M's average benchmark score of 6019 places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. This is a stark contrast to the CPU, which sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 40518.

The disparity between the CPU and GPU performance is stark. The Core Ultra X7 368H is a capable processor, with a Passmark multithread score of 32956 and a single-thread score of 4005, putting it in the same league as the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and Intel Core 7 253PE, which have average scores of 40431 and 40557, respectively. However, this processing power is rendered almost irrelevant by the GPU. The Radeon 760M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, which have similar average scores, but these are all low-end parts that are not designed for demanding modern titles.

In the context of this game, the high-performing CPU is effectively wasted. The combo rank of 2989/2996 demonstrates that the system's overall capability is defined by its weakest link, which is the integrated GPU. Users with this hardware will experience the same performance limitations as those with much older, less powerful CPUs, as the GPU becomes the universal bottleneck. This pairing is fundamentally unbalanced for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, where the GPU workload is immense.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon 760M is the decisive component in this system's performance, and its specifications explain why it struggles so severely. Built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with a 4 nm process, the GPU features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. While it has 8 ray tracing cores, its raw compute throughput is limited to 5.323 TFLOPS. This is a low figure for modern gaming, and it is reflected in its benchmark scores, such as a Passmark G3D score of 5310 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 400.

The GPU's memory configuration is a major disadvantage. It relies on System Shared memory, with a bandwidth that is "System Dependent." In this system, the CPU supports LPDDR5X memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, but this is shared with the CPU and is not dedicated to the GPU. This shared memory architecture, combined with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, limits the speed at which textures and geometry can be fed to the GPU, exacerbating the performance issues seen in the benchmark results.

The clock speeds, with a base of 800 MHz and a boost of 2599 MHz, are respectable for an integrated GPU, but they cannot compensate for the underlying lack of execution units. The pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s are simply too low to handle the complex rendering demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator's detailed terrain and aircraft models. The data shows that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at every resolution and setting, confirming that its architectural limitations are the defining factor in this combo's poor performance.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is the complete set of measured average frame rates (FPS) for this hardware combination:

1920x1080:

• Low: 34 FPS
• Medium: 27 FPS (min 23, max 31)
• High: 20 FPS
• Ultra: 19 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 28 FPS
• Medium: 22 FPS (min 18, max 25)
• High: 16 FPS
• Ultra: 15 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: 20 FPS
• Medium: 16 FPS (min 13, max 18)
• High: 12 FPS
• Ultra: 11 FPS

The data shows a consistent and predictable pattern. For each increase in resolution, the average FPS drops by approximately 4-6 points, regardless of the preset. The minimum FPS values for the Medium preset, which is the only one with recorded min/max data, also show a clear decline, from 23 FPS at 1080p to 13 FPS at 4K. This indicates that not only is the average performance poor, but the frame pacing is also inconsistent, leading to noticeable stutters and hitches. The maximum FPS values, such as 31 FPS at 1080p Medium, are only marginally higher than the averages, showing that there is little to no headroom for smooth performance even in the best-case scenarios. This breakdown confirms that the system is uniformly unable to provide a fluid experience, with the only playable configuration being 1080p Low, which barely crosses the 30 FPS threshold.